Literature DB >> 25795120

Assessment of mechanisms driving non-linear dose-response relationships in genotoxicity testing.

M Guérard1, M Baum2, A Bitsch3, G Eisenbrand4, A Elhajouji5, B Epe6, M Habermeyer4, B Kaina7, H J Martus5, S Pfuhler8, C Schmitz9, A Sutter10, A D Thomas7, C Ziemann3, R Froetschl11.   

Abstract

In genetic toxicology, risk assessment has traditionally adopted linear dose-responses for any compound that causes genotoxic effects. Increasing evidence of non-linear dose-responses, however, suggests potential cellular tolerance to low levels of many genotoxicants with diverse modes of action. Such putative non-linear dose-responses need to be substantiated by strong mechanistic data that identifies the mechanisms responsible for the tolerance to low doses. This can be achieved by experimental demonstration of cytoprotective mechanisms and by providing experimental support for the existence of tolerance mechanisms against low dose effects. By highlighting key experiments into low dose mechanisms, this review aims to clarify which mechanistic data are required to support the use of non-linear dose-response models in risk assessment. Such key experiments are presented and discussed for alkylating agents, oxidants, particulate matter, nucleoside analogues, topoisomerase inhibitors and aneugens and exemplify the use of gene knockout models or transgenic models as well as chemical modulators of key effectors of relevant pathways and their impact on dose-response relationships. In vitro studies are particularly valuable to elucidate mechanisms of low-dose protection or lack thereof, while in vivo experiments are most appropriate for deriving a safe dose. In order to evaluate the existence of non-linear dose-response relationships for genotoxicants, we suggest that careful attention should be given to the mode of genotoxic action, relevant biomarkers of exposure, as well as to the existence and impact of potential cytoprotective mechanisms like detoxifying metabolism and DNA repair.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA damage; Genetic toxicology; Non-linear dose–response; Threshold

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25795120     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2014.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res        ISSN: 1383-5742            Impact factor:   5.657


  10 in total

Review 1.  Molecular mechanism of adenomatous polyposis coli-induced blockade of base excision repair pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Satya Narayan; Ritika Sharma
Journal:  Life Sci       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 5.037

2.  Time-matched analysis of DNA adduct formation and early gene expression as predictive tool for renal carcinogenesis in methylazoxymethanol acetate treated Eker rats.

Authors:  Valentina Klaus; Heinke Bastek; Katja Damme; Leonard B Collins; Roland Frötschl; Norbert Benda; Dominik Lutter; Heidrun Ellinger-Ziegelbauer; James A Swenberg; Daniel R Dietrich; Kerstin Stemmer
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 3.  Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Marie-Claude Jaurand; Peter Møller; Yasuo Morimoto; Norihiro Kobayashi; Kent E Pinkerton; Linda M Sargent; Roel C H Vermeulen; Bice Fubini; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 4.  Setting Occupational Exposure Limits for Genotoxic Substances in the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Authors:  Ester Lovsin Barle; Gian Christian Winkler; Susanne Glowienke; Azeddine Elhajouji; Jana Nunic; Hans-Joerg Martus
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 5.  Contributions of DNA repair and damage response pathways to the non-linear genotoxic responses of alkylating agents.

Authors:  Joanna Klapacz; Lynn H Pottenger; Bevin P Engelward; Christopher D Heinen; George E Johnson; Rebecca A Clewell; Paul L Carmichael; Yeyejide Adeleye; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 5.657

6.  Effects of Manganese on Genomic Integrity in the Multicellular Model Organism Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  Merle M Nicolai; Ann-Kathrin Weishaupt; Jessica Baesler; Vanessa Brinkmann; Anna Wellenberg; Nicola Winkelbeiner; Anna Gremme; Michael Aschner; Gerhard Fritz; Tanja Schwerdtle; Julia Bornhorst
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-10-09       Impact factor: 5.923

7.  Kinetic Modeling Reveals the Roles of Reactive Oxygen Species Scavenging and DNA Repair Processes in Shaping the Dose-Response Curve of KBrO₃-Induced DNA Damage.

Authors:  Maria A Spassova; David J Miller; Alexander S Nikolov
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 6.543

8.  Clinical trial considerations on male contraception and collection of pregnancy information from female partner: update.

Authors:  Maria Longauer Banholzer; Christoph Wandel; Paul Barrow; Marie Mannino; Georg Schmitt; Melanie Guérard; Lutz Müller; Gerard Greig; Kenjie Amemiya; Richard Peck; Thomas Singer; Lucette Doessegger
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2016-07-25

Review 9.  Adverse outcome pathways for ionizing radiation and breast cancer involve direct and indirect DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, genomic instability, and interaction with hormonal regulation of the breast.

Authors:  Jessica S Helm; Ruthann A Rudel
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Epigenetic repression of miR-17 contributed to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate-triggered insulin resistance by targeting Keap1-Nrf2/miR-200a axis in skeletal muscle.

Authors:  Jie Wei; Qiongyu Hao; Chengkun Chen; Juan Li; Xikui Han; Zhao Lei; Tao Wang; Yinan Wang; Xiang You; Xiaoxuan Chen; Huasheng Li; Yuxin Ding; Weihao Huang; Yangyang Hu; Shuirong Lin; Heqing Shen; Yi Lin
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 11.556

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.